Why Why?

[lunamoth]

OK, so who, what, where and when are all in the scope of my senses. And I love how. All science distills why to how, and then distills how to who, what, where, and when.

But why do we ask why? Is why real? Does why only and always distill down to how, or is there a grander scheme for why?

Where did why come from?

Why?

 

[lunamoth]

Is why metaphysical?

Does that mean why is actually outside of empirical knowledge?

Should we get rid of why?

 

[ellenjanuary]

Without why we would all be what? Exactly. Why assumes that we are neither perfect nor perfectly knowledgeable even as it imposes our imperfections upon our knowledge. Why answers the question and questions the answer, leaving space in fact for friction without undue frisson. Multiplication, where other queries call for division; schools of thought where other queries call for prison, status when the quo is derision... and ascent past the rigors of Reason.

Because. That's why.

 

[Willamena]

OK, so who, what, where and when are all in the scope of my senses. And I love how. All science distills why to how, and then distills how to who, what, where, and when.

But why do we ask why? Is why real? Does why only and always distill down to how, or is there a grander scheme for why?

Where did why come from?

Why?

"Why" is question; it is the epitome of question ...so to question it is simply nothing more than a demonstration.

The first paragraph suggests a purpose for the other 4 questions in the context of the senses and science. "Why" gives content to purpose --if there's no why then there's no need to pursue a purpose.

"How" becomes like "why" when we surrender the idea that consciousness participates in the world. Where there's no intent in the description of explanation, there is only things interacting with other things, actions and activities in their causal sequencing, and there the questioning will rest. Where there is an intent associated in the description of explanation, there you'll find consciousness, or "as if consciousness" imparted to the object, and there the questioning will rest, having found purpose.

Why does the sun rise? The rotation of the earth changes the angle of visibility between observer and object, giving the appearance of the sun's movement in relation to the observer.

Why does the sun rise? To give us a new day.

Is why metaphysical?

Does that mean why is actually outside of empirical knowledge?

Should we get rid of why?

I wouldn't call "why" a first principle per se --it's not, in itself, a postulate. It's the demand of a postulate. It's not in itself knowledge --it's a command for knowledge.

"The only thing we require to be good philosophers is the faculty of wonder." ~'Sophie's World' (Quote may not be exact.)

 

[AfterGlow]

In evolutionary terms it probably comes from our attempts to determine the motivations of other humans, and animals. We can know who does something, where, when and how, but if we know why we might be able to figure out whether their motives can help or harm us. I suppose it's simply a natural extrapolation to extend that sort of thinking to include non-sentient phenomena.
The sun has hidden behind cloud. Why? Have we angered it?
There hasn't been any rain for months. Why? Do the clouds want something from us, is there an intelligence that drives them?

And then when people realised that natural phenomena weren't conscious or controlled by conscious deities, they still wanted to know why they did what they did, and scientific experimentation was born.

At least that's my reckoning.

 

[lunamoth]

Without why we would all be what? Exactly. Why assumes that we are neither perfect nor perfectly knowledgeable even as it imposes our imperfections upon our knowledge. Why answers the question and questions the answer, leaving space in fact for friction without undue frisson. Multiplication, where other queries call for division; schools of thought where other queries call for prison, status when the quo is derision... and ascent past the rigors of Reason.

Because. That's why.

Are we human without why? Does why differentiate us from other animals?

 

[lunamoth]

"Why" is question; it is the epitome of question ...so to question it is simply nothing more than a demonstration.

The first paragraph suggests a purpose for the other 4 questions in the context of the senses and science. "Why" gives content to purpose --if there's no why then there's no need to pursue a purpose.

"How" becomes like "why" when we surrender the idea that consciousness participates in the world. Where there's no intent in the description of explanation, there is only things interacting with other things, actions and activities in their causal sequencing, and there the questioning will rest. Where there is an intent associated in the description of explanation, there you'll find consciousness, or "as if consciousness" imparted to the object, and there the questioning will rest, having found purpose.

So why itself gives purpose? Isn't that circular reasoning?

Why does the sun rise? The rotation of the earth changes the angle of visibility between observer and object, giving the appearance of the sun's movement in relation to the observer.

Why does the sun rise? To give us a new day.

Nice.

Do robots need a new day?

Do humans?

I wouldn't call "why" a first principle per se --it's not, in itself, a postulate. It's the demand of a postulate. It's not in itself knowledge --it's a command for knowledge.

"The only thing we require to be good philosophers is the faculty of wonder." ~'Sophie's World' (Quote may not be exact.)

I enjoyed Sophie's World. I should read it again; my daughter will be ready for it soon.

 

[lunamoth]

In evolutionary terms it probably comes from our attempts to determine the motivations of other humans, and animals. We can know who does something, where, when and how, but if we know why we might be able to figure out whether their motives can help or harm us. I suppose it's simply a natural extrapolation to extend that sort of thinking to include non-sentient phenomena.
The sun has hidden behind cloud. Why? Have we angered it?
There hasn't been any rain for months. Why? Do the clouds want something from us, is there an intelligence that drives them?

And then when people realised that natural phenomena weren't conscious or controlled by conscious deities, they still wanted to know why they did what they did, and scientific experimentation was born.

At least that's my reckoning.

So is curiosity, our drive to ask and answer why, just an evolutionary spandrel?

And if so, has it then taken on a new adaptive role for humans?

 

[lunamoth]

Is why a metaphysical question?

 

[lunamoth]

It occurs to me, there probably was a reason they poisoned Socrates.

 

[AfterGlow]

So is curiosity, our drive to ask and answer why, just an evolutionary spandrel?

Maybe, we'll have to wait 5 million years to see for certain though.

And if so, has it then taken on a new adaptive role for humans?

I think humans are a bit of an evolutionary dead end. Once a species has become conscious of it's own evolution and the role of natural selection, is it actually still subject to those pressures anymore? Not that I'm saying that were headed for extinction, just that perhaps our future lies beyond the scope of biological evolution, into purely intellectual realms perhaps? In which case "why" would be pivotal.

 

[lunamoth]

Maybe, we'll have to wait 5 million years to see for certain though.

I think humans are a bit of an evolutionary dead end. Once a species has become conscious of it's own evolution and the role of natural selection, is it actually still subject to those pressures anymore? Not that I'm saying that were headed for extinction, just that perhaps our future lies beyond the scope of biological evolution, into purely intellectual realms perhaps? In which case "why" would be pivotal.

Interesting questions. :yes: Can you elaborate on why 'why' would be pivotal?

 

[sandandfoam]

The best reply I've seen to this question is why not?

 

[lunamoth]

The best reply I've seen to this question is why not?

lol!

So, just because we can, should we?

 

[AfterGlow]

Interesting questions. :yes: Can you elaborate on why 'why' would be pivotal?

I suppose without selection pressures driving us as a species to better ourselves, there would need to be a new driving force. Obtaining knowledge is one thing, but gaining understanding is infinitely better, and the beginning of the path to understanding is curiosity.
Not that I know what I'm talking about, I'm just making it up as I go along.

 

[sandandfoam]

lol!

So, just because we can, should we?

I think so

 

[lunamoth]

I suppose without selection pressures driving us as a species to better ourselves, there would need to be a new driving force. Obtaining knowledge is one thing, but gaining understanding is infinitely better, and the beginning of the path to understanding is curiosity.
Not that I know what I'm talking about, I'm just making it up as I go along.

So, this is what I wonder too. Does the fact that we are aware that the things that we think are important/have value (such as the continuity of our species, continuity of our culture) are actually based in a blind evolutionary process that simply selects those that survive best undercut (short-circuit) the very basis of those values?

 

[lunamoth]

I think so

Isn't that how we ended up with the bomb?

 

[Willamena]

So why itself gives purpose? Isn't that circular reasoning?

I suck at these circular reasoning bits. Okay, trying again. There's question/why, and there's purpose. I proposed that "why" is the content of purpose --I see it as a question-mark snuggling up inside purpose, thus giving it meaning. Without the propulsion of wonder and inquiry, there's no need for purpose.

I'm open to other images.

Do robots need a new day?

Do humans?

Sure.

 

[AfterGlow]

So, this is what I wonder too. Does the fact that we are aware that the things that we think are important/have value (such as the continuity of our species, continuity of our culture) are actually based in a blind evolutionary process that simply selects those that survive best undercut (short-circuit) the very basis of those values?

I would say that the origin of a value doesn't necessarily define it's worth. At least, I don't believe that it does.